Re: [spring] 6MAN WGLC: draft-ietf-6man-sids

Brian

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 5:50 AM Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> No Gyan, fc00::/7 is not available for carving. fc00::/8 is on reserve for
> the dreamt-of centrally registered ULA prefixes, and fd00::/8 is fully
> committed.
>
> If SRV6 is important, it could justify its own prefix.
>

   Gyan> As using either GUA or ULA for SRV6 block provides flexibility for
operators, I agree that SRv6 can justify its own global block as the /16
being allocated with this draft.  I think we should augment the draft to
add a dedicated ULA bock maybe same /16 size would be reasonable.  Since
there is not an IANA ULA registry since ULA is private, as the compressed
SID violates RFC 4291, I think maybe a draft at least that defines the
dedicated /16 block for ULA for SRV6 use is a good idea.

One of the major benefits as I mentioned for ULA over GUA is that ULA is
not internet routable and that mitigates any possibility of security issues
with SRV6 SID leaking to the internet.

Thoughts?

>
> Regards,
>     Brian Carpenter
>     (via tiny screen & keyboard)
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022, 19:45 Gyan Mishra, <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:31 PM Brian E Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29-Sep-22 16:06, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > We should qualify the IANA request to make the /16 non internet
>>> routable identical to ULA addressing.
>>> >
>>> > If that is what we desire then why don’t we make it standard BCP to
>>> always use ULA for the operators SRV6 domain.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that a /48 would be enough, but it is required, to
>>> conform with RFC4193.
>>
>>
>>     Gyan> Understood.  Most operators would like to use ULA for SRV6
>> deployments so do we need to carve out block out of ULA space just as we
>> are doing for GUA to conform with RFC 4291.  ULA has is a big enough block
>> FC00::/7 so we could carve a block out of that.  Does not need to be as
>> large a block allocation for SIDs as it would not be advertised to the
>> internet does not require to be globally unique.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Brian
>>>
>>> > We would not have to burn up a /16 unnecessarily.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Kind Regards
>>> >
>>> > Gyan
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 4:00 AM Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:furry13@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     Hello,
>>> >
>>> >     This email starts the 6man Working Group Last Call for the "Segment
>>> >     Identifiers in SRv6" draft
>>> >     (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids <
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids>).
>>> >
>>> >     The WGLC ends on Tue, Oct 4, 23:59:59 UTC.
>>> >
>>> >       As the document is closely related to the work in the SPRING WG,
>>> we'd
>>> >     like the SPRING WG to review the document and discuss the following
>>> >     questions:
>>> >
>>> >     - the action items required from SPRING (Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the
>>> >     draft,
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids-01#section-4
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-sids-01#section-4
>>> >)
>>> >     [*]. Would it make sense to merge those open issues with the 'Open
>>> >     Issues' section of
>>> >     the SPRING document?
>>> >     -  whether the document needs more guidance regarding routability
>>> of
>>> >     /16 or such requirements shall belong to some other document?  In
>>> >     particular,  shall we specify that it MUST NOT be in the DFZ? Or
>>> >     setting 'Globally Reachable = false' in the registry should be
>>> >     sufficient? The current idea is that the prefix needs to fail
>>> closed
>>> >     and not be routable by default.
>>> >
>>> >     [*] The draft currently refers to the individual submission
>>> instead of
>>> >
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
>>> <
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
>>> >
>>> >       - the link will be updated in the next revision.
>>> >
>>> >     Please review the draft and send your comments to the list/
>>> >
>>> >     --
>>> >     SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>>> >
>>> >
>>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> >     ipv6@ietf.org <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
>>> >     Administrative Requests:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
>>> >
>>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>> >
>>> > *Gyan Mishra*
>>> >
>>> > /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>>> >
>>> > /Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>//
>>> > /
>>> >
>>> > /M 301 502-1347
>>> >
>>> > /
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> > ipv6@ietf.org
>>> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>> --
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>
>> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*